AngryDragon:cryinoutloud: budrojr: jst3p: Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.I have 50/50 custody, shared parental rights and pay reasonable child support considering our disparity in income. You are doing it wrong.Glad it worked out for you bro. You may be one of the only ones EVER that it has worked out for.#exceptionnottherule

No shiat. My psycho ex kept me in court for 12 years, and I was farked over almost every single time I walked in there.

My ex was addicted to drugs without any means of support and she STILL got custody. Apparently a father with a clean record and successful career who volunteers his time to both the community and his child's school was a less capable parent than someone who was so drugged out of her mind that she would spend days at a time in bed. And she received spousal support for 3 years.

Seems legit.

Yep. Same thing happened to my brother. He'd make his support payments, she'd spend it on drugs, the electricity and phone would get turned off for non-payment. Of course the kids were going hungry. This happened so many times we lost count. She failed multiple court mandated drug tests and the biatch STILL got to keep custody. She finally screwed up bad enough that the idiot judge couldn't ignore it and gave my brother custody of his three kids. By then, the oldest was a complete thug, actively involved in a gang, and too far gone to be a useful member of society. He's in and out of prison on a regular basis. At least his two other kids are awesome.

Pray 4 Mojo:jayphat: Didn't we read a story here a while back where DNA proved a guy wasn't the father, but since the mother fingered him as the dad, and the child would suffer without the money, they were going to force him to pay up anyway?

I think the logic was that he'd already accepted responsibility as the kid's father... and they weren't gonna let him off the hook now.

And you would defend that "logic" Why should a man have to pay for a child that's not his, involuntarily of course. (if he wants to be a father and support the kid despite it not being his, then more power to him, he just shouldn't be forced to)

ongbok:BarkingUnicorn: ongbok: Have a friend that worked as an assistant D.A for a while. He said what he quickly learned in the prosecutors office is that it isn't about justice, it is about winning. He said that there were plenty of cases that they either knew flat out that a person was innocent or they had enough doubt to point to innocence, but they still went after the person because they knew they could get them to take a plea.

Your friend worked for a DA who withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense "plenty of times?" Or was he just talking about opinions flying around the office?

They didn't hold anything back, they just go after people who they know they can get to take a plea. For example there are many people that can't afford a lawyer, but make too much to get a public defender, or can't afford to have to keep going to court to fight a charge. They know that if they pile charges on a person like this, regardless of whether or not they are guilty or innocent, the person will likely take a plea to lesser charges that doesn't involve jail time.

Hm. The one time I was charged with a crime, I argued that I could not afford a lawyer. Public defender's office didn't want to rep me because I earned more than the poverty level. I argued that being able to survive and being able to afford an attorney were not the same thing. The judge told me, "Hire a lawyer or proceed pro se." I told him that I had tried but could not find a lawyer who would take what I could afford as a retainer. I said I was incompetent to defend myself and that if I was forced to do so under these circumstances, a conviction would likely be overturned on appeal. (Never mind where I'd get the money for an appeal.)

Lo and behold! He found a slush fund from which to pay for a private attorney. It only took six hearings over nine months.

/ Charge was dropped the day the trial was to begin.// Cost me only the bail bondsman's fee & 8 hours in jail/// I plead the Fifth

The general feeling is, they don't want to have a chilling effect on women who genuinely need to file charges against their exes who are deadbeats refusing to pay child support. The majority of cases are not like this; most cases actually are either deadbeat dads (or moms--seen those too) or else just honest mistakes by both parties and no need for penalties. So in the rare cases where someone is knowingly lying, the courts are reluctant to levy penalties because they don't want everyone else to be afraid to bring legitimate cases to court.

That said, I suspect the father's attorney in this case is urging him to take her to the cleaners in a civil suit for emotional damages. My advice would be to walk away, but I tend to believe in clean breaks.

I see we've already started in on how white men are the most oppressed members of society and are afforded no justice in the courts. How long before the usual suspects show up and start in with the "All women are unfeeling whores' discussion? Or is that all the time here?

2/10, especially since none of those things had happened in the thread before you. It's more likely that people will genuinely accuse the court of misogyny for not just going along with her story.

Warlordtrooper:Pray 4 Mojo: jayphat: Didn't we read a story here a while back where DNA proved a guy wasn't the father, but since the mother fingered him as the dad, and the child would suffer without the money, they were going to force him to pay up anyway?

I think the logic was that he'd already accepted responsibility as the kid's father... and they weren't gonna let him off the hook now.

And you would defend that "logic" Why should a man have to pay for a child that's not his, involuntarily of course. (if he wants to be a father and support the kid despite it not being his, then more power to him, he just shouldn't be forced to)

Warlordtrooper:Pray 4 Mojo: jayphat: Didn't we read a story here a while back where DNA proved a guy wasn't the father, but since the mother fingered him as the dad, and the child would suffer without the money, they were going to force him to pay up anyway?

I think the logic was that he'd already accepted responsibility as the kid's father... and they weren't gonna let him off the hook now.

And you would defend that "logic" Why should a man have to pay for a child that's not his, involuntarily of course. (if he wants to be a father and support the kid despite it not being his, then more power to him, he just shouldn't be forced to)

Once you become a parent, you're not allowed to quit. The kid did not defraud you and doesn't deserve to lose support. Might be nice if, after child support ends, you were allowed sue the lying parent to get it back without shorting the kid. But that would rarely result in full recovery, I imagine.

I see we've already started in on how white men are the most oppressed members of society and are afforded no justice in the courts. How long before the usual suspects show up and start in with the "All women are unfeeling whores' discussion? Or is that all the time here?

I have no children. I'm pretty far left leaning with gender equality issues. Shiat, I even stand up for the transgendered here which is pretty much a lost cause on Fark. That said, you'd have to be pretty ducking blind not to see how biased courts are to the mother in child support and custody cases. It's absolutely horrible and you should feel bad for what you've said.

A thousand times this. I have seen mothers with criminal histories as long as I am tall for every drug under the sun be granted custody and child support over a father with no criminal record, full-time job, stable home life, and damned good parenting skills just because she is a woman. It's ridiculous. You, Bigger Leftist Internet Dumbass, are just that. Or trolling. Not sure which. Don't care, either.

OgreMagi:One of the biggest problems in family courts is they award child support based on "potential" to earn. So if you made big bucks when the divorced started, but got laid off and took a shiat job afterwards (which happened to a lot of people when the economy went into the shiatter), the courts don't care. Your potential is all that matters. Because the courts refuse to consider economic reality, fathers who are trying their best under bad circumstances, living out of their cars or a shelter, are still considered dead-beat dads even though they send almost every penny they earn to their kids.

Well, the problem is, there's a child in all that mess. Courts wouldn't care so much (and often don't) when it's just a husband and wife biatching over alimony; but if dad is not paying CHILD support, the court has no mercy because the presumption is that that payment would be going to the child's care. So if dad isn't paying for his child--regardless of why--the court's view is that it doesn't matter whether dad and mom are married, dad would have to support the kid either way. If they were married and dad had a crappy job, he'd still be supporting the child, right? If he'd had a good job in March and a crappy job in September, why should that matter? It would still cost X dollars to feed and clothe Junior, right?

And sadly, decent dads get screwed by deadbeats who game the system. For every dad living on the street so he can send every dime he makes to his kids, there's one like the asshole I saw in Child Support Services blithely telling the judge how he hadn't worked for two years because he was a screenwriter and nobody was buying his scripts. The judge had no mercy, and said unless this douche got a job, he'd impute his new wife's wages to him and start attaching HER wages to pay HIS child support. It's thanks to idiots like him that guys who really do want to pay support but just can't do it get no breaks in court.

BarkingUnicorn:Gyrfalcon: The judge had no mercy, and said unless this douche got a job, he'd impute his new wife's wages to him and start attaching HER wages to pay HIS child support.

LOL! wut?

Depending on the state (is FL community property?), it can be done.

I almost had my tax return attached to my ex-husband's (in a community property state) to pay his ex wife's tax debt of over $10k, until I took the paperwork to the IRS office and showed his divorce decree, my marriage license, my bank statements showing that my income was VA disability (non-reportable and non-taxable) and that the bulk of the money they were trying to take was from monies I had paid on the mortgage from my account (we'd kept separate bank accounts) on a VA loan. Got my money back very quickly. They can and will do that in a community property state (dunno if FL is one), and the burden of proof in on you to prove it's your spouse's debt and not yours.

Aigoo:BarkingUnicorn: Gyrfalcon: The judge had no mercy, and said unless this douche got a job, he'd impute his new wife's wages to him and start attaching HER wages to pay HIS child support.

LOL! wut?

Depending on the state (is FL community property?), it can be done.

I almost had my tax return attached to my ex-husband's (in a community property state) to pay his ex wife's tax debt of over $10k, until I took the paperwork to the IRS office and showed his divorce decree, my marriage license, my bank statements showing that my income was VA disability (non-reportable and non-taxable) and that the bulk of the money they were trying to take was from monies I had paid on the mortgage from my account (we'd kept separate bank accounts) on a VA loan. Got my money back very quickly. They can and will do that in a community property state (dunno if FL is one), and the burden of proof in on you to prove it's your spouse's debt and not yours.

That's not the same at all. Gyrfalcom seems to be talking about taking money from Mom's paycheck to pay back to her as child support!

BarkingUnicorn:Aigoo: BarkingUnicorn: Gyrfalcon: The judge had no mercy, and said unless this douche got a job, he'd impute his new wife's wages to him and start attaching HER wages to pay HIS child support.

LOL! wut?

Depending on the state (is FL community property?), it can be done.

I almost had my tax return attached to my ex-husband's (in a community property state) to pay his ex wife's tax debt of over $10k, until I took the paperwork to the IRS office and showed his divorce decree, my marriage license, my bank statements showing that my income was VA disability (non-reportable and non-taxable) and that the bulk of the money they were trying to take was from monies I had paid on the mortgage from my account (we'd kept separate bank accounts) on a VA loan. Got my money back very quickly. They can and will do that in a community property state (dunno if FL is one), and the burden of proof in on you to prove it's your spouse's debt and not yours.

That's not the same at all. Gyrfalcom seems to be talking about taking money from Mom's paycheck to pay back to her as child support!

Back in the late 60s/early 70s my paternal grandfather paid child support to my paternal grandmother. Prior to their divorce, she packed up the kids one day and fled with her lover (a friend of his in the Navy with him). My Nana then fled back home to West Virginia, and as far as my grandfather knew they were living with her parents in Oak Hill. Each month he wrote out a check and mailed it to her parent's home, and each month the check was duly cashed.

Fast forward a couple years. My grandpa has no idea where his two sons are, his ex-wife isn't talking to him, and he is paying his child support when BAM! he is served with a court order claiming he has not paid. So he gathered up all of the canceled checks and brought them to court. When the judge saw the proof he asked my grandfather if there was anything he could do; my grandfather told him that he had no idea where his boys were and he would like visitation. My Nana refused to tell the judge where she was and also refused to allow visitation. So the judge told him that until she allowed him to see his sons, he didn't have to pay child support.

CliChe Guevara:GORDON: This is why those "Men's Rights" movements are so stupid, because every now and then one of them only gets a little farked instead of completely farked.

They are kind of redundant, as its a problem society has already found a solution to. Come on. Push them far enough and guys simply just drink themselves to death, or eat a bullet. Nice and quiet, no mess. Sure, maybe in the odd case one goes down in a shootout with the cops, but then its ok because you can just retroactively dismiss them as nuts in the first place so no one needs to care.

Women are smart enough to band together in groups, raise huge amounts of cash, and play the PR game about any slight to their 'sisters', real or imagined, until its taken care of to their satisfaction. Even to the point of using that power to marginalize and/or remove rights from others, particularly men. Guys and that whole independent and tough thing they are taught means they shun any of their own in trouble, and those that are in trouble won't ask. Guys no longer have rights simply because we won't fight for them.

Well, that and they're labeled 'mysoginists' if they try to change things.

cryinoutloud:budrojr: jst3p: Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.I have 50/50 custody, shared parental rights and pay reasonable child support considering our disparity in income. You are doing it wrong.Glad it worked out for you bro. You may be one of the only ones EVER that it has worked out for.#exceptionnottherule

No shiat. My psycho ex kept me in court for 12 years, and I was farked over almost every single time I walked in there.

BarkingUnicorn:Aigoo: BarkingUnicorn: Gyrfalcon: The judge had no mercy, and said unless this douche got a job, he'd impute his new wife's wages to him and start attaching HER wages to pay HIS child support.

LOL! wut?

Depending on the state (is FL community property?), it can be done.

I almost had my tax return attached to my ex-husband's (in a community property state) to pay his ex wife's tax debt of over $10k, until I took the paperwork to the IRS office and showed his divorce decree, my marriage license, my bank statements showing that my income was VA disability (non-reportable and non-taxable) and that the bulk of the money they were trying to take was from monies I had paid on the mortgage from my account (we'd kept separate bank accounts) on a VA loan. Got my money back very quickly. They can and will do that in a community property state (dunno if FL is one), and the burden of proof in on you to prove it's your spouse's debt and not yours.

That's not the same at all. Gyrfalcom seems to be talking about taking money from Mom's paycheck to pay back to her as child support!

BarkingUnicorn:BarkingUnicorn: Aigoo: BarkingUnicorn: Gyrfalcon: The judge had no mercy, and said unless this douche got a job, he'd impute his new wife's wages to him and start attaching HER wages to pay HIS child support.

LOL! wut?

Depending on the state (is FL community property?), it can be done.

I almost had my tax return attached to my ex-husband's (in a community property state) to pay his ex wife's tax debt of over $10k, until I took the paperwork to the IRS office and showed his divorce decree, my marriage license, my bank statements showing that my income was VA disability (non-reportable and non-taxable) and that the bulk of the money they were trying to take was from monies I had paid on the mortgage from my account (we'd kept separate bank accounts) on a VA loan. Got my money back very quickly. They can and will do that in a community property state (dunno if FL is one), and the burden of proof in on you to prove it's your spouse's debt and not yours.

That's not the same at all. Gyrfalcom seems to be talking about taking money from Mom's paycheck to pay back to her as child support!

Back in the late 60s/early 70s my paternal grandfather paid child support to my paternal grandmother. Prior to their divorce, she packed up the kids one day and fled with her lover (a friend of his in the Navy with him). My Nana then fled back home to West Virginia, and as far as my grandfather knew they were living with her parents in Oak Hill. Each month he wrote out a check and mailed it to her parent's home, and each month the check was duly cashed.

Fast forward a couple years. My grandpa has no idea where his two sons are, his ex-wife isn't talking to him, and he is paying his child support when BAM! he is served with a court order claiming he has not paid. So he gathered up all of the canceled checks and brought them to court. When the judge saw the proof he asked my grandfather if there was anything he could do; my grandfather told him that he had no idea where his boys were and he would like visitation. My Nana refused to tell the judge where she was and also refused to allow visitation. So the judge told him that until she allowed him to see his sons, he didn't have to pay child support.

Benevolent Misanthrope:Pray 4 Mojo: Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.

What about a black father?

Oh... right.

Nevermind.

Try a lesbian parent.

I have a couple of friends going through that. One (female) has been unofficially labelled "father" and is getting the business that father usually gets in this state (Illinois).

Thing is, she is neither married as marriage equality has not been passed yet in Illinois, and she has not taken any type of parental custody. She just moved in with her girlfriend for a couple of years. Now the state is trying to say that there was some kind of de facto adoption so the state in't left holding the bag on the two kids.

Back in the late 60s/early 70s my paternal grandfather paid child support to my paternal grandmother. Prior to their divorce, she packed up the kids one day and fled with her lover (a friend of his in the Navy with him). My Nana then fled back home to West Virginia, and as far as my grandfather knew they were living with her parents in Oak Hill. Each month he wrote out a check and mailed it to her parent's home, and each month the check was duly cashed.

Fast forward a couple years. My grandpa has no idea where his two sons are, his ex-wife isn't talking to him, and he is paying his child support when BAM! he is served with a court order claiming he has not paid. So he gathered up all of the canceled checks and brought them to court. When the judge saw the proof he asked my grandfather if there was anything he could do; my grandfather told him that he had no idea where his boys were and he would like visitation. My Nana refused to tell the judge where she was and also refused to allow visitation. So the judge told him that until she allowed him to see his sons, he didn't have to pay child support.

/end csb

Damn. That's bad.

My uncle got screwed by his ex, where she said she was sending the kids to private school, actually sent them to public school, and pocketed the however many thousands over about a decade.

/Dad also got screwed, but that's what happens when you're making $46K, Mom is making $90K, they set the child support based on that (and it's MI, so they're incompetent), and then you drop down to $30K, and Mom's still spending the shared expenses money like they're combining for $135K and sticking Dad for half the bill. Other than never paying Dad his own shared expenses money, I don't think she ever pulled anything

Pray 4 Mojo:jayphat: Didn't we read a story here a while back where DNA proved a guy wasn't the father, but since the mother fingered him as the dad, and the child would suffer without the money, they were going to force him to pay up anyway?

I think the logic was that he'd already accepted responsibility as the kid's father... and they weren't gonna let him off the hook now.

If I pay you with counterfeit money, you've accepted it and have to deal with the consequences.

Gyrfalcon:And sadly, decent dads get screwed by deadbeats who game the system. For every dad living on the street so he can send every dime he makes to his kids, there's one like the asshole I saw in Child Support Services blithely telling the judge how he hadn't worked for two years because he was a screenwriter and nobody was buying his scripts. The judge had no mercy, and said unless this douche got a job, he'd impute his new wife's wages to him and start attaching HER wages to pay HIS child support. It's thanks to idiots like him that guys who really do want to pay support but just can't do it get no breaks in court.

Here's the whole problem with that situation. You're the man, ergo you are guilty. In family court, a man is guilty until he can prove his innocence. And beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt often isn't good enough. It has to be "so farking not guilty that the judge might be disciplined if he rules against him."

R.A.Danny:OgreMagi: If I pay you with counterfeit money, you've accepted it and have to deal with the consequences.

Just as long as you're in prison for passing monopoly money.

Nope. Since you accepted the phoney money, you're the one who has to go to prison, biatch. That's the logic of a woman lying about the paternity of the child.

Actually, I did read of a case where the judge did it right. The father didn't discover he wasn't the father until the wife tried to use that fact to gain full custody. The father didn't care, he had raised the kids as his own and loved them regardless of who the father was. The mother was a major c00nt and the judge knew it. The kids didn't want to be with her, either. He gave the father full custody. Sometimes the family court gets it right. I just wish it was more often.

OgreMagi:Actually, I did read of a case where the judge did it right. The father didn't discover he wasn't the father until the wife tried to use that fact to gain full custody. The father didn't care, he had raised the kids as his own and loved them regardless of who the father was. The mother was a major c00nt and the judge knew it. The kids didn't want to be with her, either. He gave the father full custody. Sometimes the family court gets it right. I just wish it was more often.

Usually the only thing the courts care about is that the kids don't end up on the public dole, thus costing the state money. Right or wrong rarely matter even a little bit so it's nice to see a happy ending.

Gyrfalcon:The general feeling is, they don't want to have a chilling effect on women who genuinely need to file charges against their exes who are deadbeats refusing to pay child support. The majority of cases are not like this; most cases actually are either deadbeat dads (or moms--seen those too) or else just honest mistakes by both parties and no need for penalties. So in the rare cases where someone is knowingly lying, the courts are reluctant to levy penalties because they don't want everyone else to be afraid to bring legitimate cases to court.

Understandable the first time around. Not the next time.

Anastacya:Fast forward a couple years. My grandpa has no idea where his two sons are, his ex-wife isn't talking to him, and he is paying his child support when BAM! he is served with a court order claiming he has not paid. So he gathered up all of the canceled checks and brought them to court. When the judge saw the proof he asked my grandfather if there was anything he could do; my grandfather told him that he had no idea where his boys were and he would like visitation. My Nana refused to tell the judge where she was and also refused to allow visitation. So the judge told him that until she allowed him to see his sons, he didn't have to pay child support.

Judges don't do that sort of thing anymore. She can withhold visitation all she wants and child support is unaffected.

Loren:Gyrfalcon: The general feeling is, they don't want to have a chilling effect on women who genuinely need to file charges against their exes who are deadbeats refusing to pay child support. The majority of cases are not like this; most cases actually are either deadbeat dads (or moms--seen those too) or else just honest mistakes by both parties and no need for penalties. So in the rare cases where someone is knowingly lying, the courts are reluctant to levy penalties because they don't want everyone else to be afraid to bring legitimate cases to court.

Understandable the first time around. Not the next time.

Anastacya: Fast forward a couple years. My grandpa has no idea where his two sons are, his ex-wife isn't talking to him, and he is paying his child support when BAM! he is served with a court order claiming he has not paid. So he gathered up all of the canceled checks and brought them to court. When the judge saw the proof he asked my grandfather if there was anything he could do; my grandfather told him that he had no idea where his boys were and he would like visitation. My Nana refused to tell the judge where she was and also refused to allow visitation. So the judge told him that until she allowed him to see his sons, he didn't have to pay child support.

Judges don't do that sort of thing anymore. She can withhold visitation all she wants and child support is unaffected.

R.A.Danny:Benevolent Misanthrope: Pray 4 Mojo: Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.

What about a black father?

Oh... right.

Nevermind.

Try a lesbian parent.

I have a couple of friends going through that. One (female) has been unofficially labelled "father" and is getting the business that father usually gets in this state (Illinois).

Thing is, she is neither married as marriage equality has not been passed yet in Illinois, and she has not taken any type of parental custody. She just moved in with her girlfriend for a couple of years. Now the state is trying to say that there was some kind of de facto adoption so the state in't left holding the bag on the two kids.

Not only that, but if my past experience is any indication, she's on the hook for child support but has absolutely no right to visitation or any other marital or parental rights.

There's a reason I've stayed out of relationships with women who have children. I've never seen it be anything but trouble in the end. Ever. It only seems to work when they adopt children together.

I have a couple of friends going through that. One (female) has been unofficially labelled "father" and is getting the business that father usually gets in this state (Illinois).

Thing is, she is neither married as marriage equality has not been passed yet in Illinois, and she has not taken any type of parental custody. She just moved in with her girlfriend for a couple of years. Now the state is trying to say that there was some kind of de facto adoption so the state in't left holding the bag on the two kids.

Did the mother die or something? Why is the state on the hook for the two kids? This story makes no farking sense the way you've told it.

I have a couple of friends going through that. One (female) has been unofficially labelled "father" and is getting the business that father usually gets in this state (Illinois).

Thing is, she is neither married as marriage equality has not been passed yet in Illinois, and she has not taken any type of parental custody. She just moved in with her girlfriend for a couple of years. Now the state is trying to say that there was some kind of de facto adoption so the state in't left holding the bag on the two kids.

Did the mother die or something? Why is the state on the hook for the two kids? This story makes no farking sense the way you've told it.

One lady gets pregnant, frozen pop, twins. She hooks up with another very nice lady, they're a lovely couple. In Illinois they can't get married, but they cohabitated for five years, and the kids are now six. Now they are splitting up. it's very sad. I'm friends with both of them so I am not taking sides here, but I am kinda sickened by the traction that the birth mother is getting in getting child support for kids that are hers and hers alone.

I am all for marriage equality, but they were never married. There was no adoption. Whether you are male or female you shouldn't get nailed with child support because you temporarily cohabitated with a woman with children.

jst3p:jayphat: Didn't we read a story here a while back where DNA proved a guy wasn't the father, but since the mother fingered him as the dad, and the child would suffer without the money, they were going to force him to pay up anyway?

Texas seems pretty farked up in this regard. If I am reading this correctly you have 60 days after birth to challenge paternity I believe the case you are referring to happened in Texas, actually I remember more than one.

https://www.oag.state.tx.us/ag_publications/txts/paternity.shtml

You're misreading it.

Texas, like most states, has a 60 day time limit to *rescind* a signed acknowledgment of paternity, the legal document that establishes paternity for children born outside a marriage.

In other words, if you sign the legal papers admitting paternity you only have 60 days to change your mind. If both parents don't don't sign the acknowledgment then someone would need to file a paternity proceeding to establish legal paternity.

/If you want a DNA test get it before you sign the document making you permanently the legal father.

Willas Tyrell:jst3p: jayphat: Didn't we read a story here a while back where DNA proved a guy wasn't the father, but since the mother fingered him as the dad, and the child would suffer without the money, they were going to force him to pay up anyway?

Texas seems pretty farked up in this regard. If I am reading this correctly you have 60 days after birth to challenge paternity I believe the case you are referring to happened in Texas, actually I remember more than one.

https://www.oag.state.tx.us/ag_publications/txts/paternity.shtml

You're misreading it.

Texas, like most states, has a 60 day time limit to *rescind* a signed acknowledgment of paternity, the legal document that establishes paternity for children born outside a marriage.

In other words, if you sign the legal papers admitting paternity you only have 60 days to change your mind. If both parents don't don't sign the acknowledgment then someone would need to file a paternity proceeding to establish legal paternity.

/If you want a DNA test get it before you sign the document making you permanently the legal father.

Paternity tests should be given at birth. I wonder how much push back there would be on a proposal to make this the law?

I see we've already started in on how white men are the most oppressed members of society and are afforded no justice in the courts. How long before the usual suspects show up and start in with the "All women are unfeeling whores' discussion? Or is that all the time here?

Whores' what?

Discussion. Don't you agree that the most qualified women to discuss whether a woman feels something about or due to sexual congress are whores? Put them in a room, let them talk it out, and I'm sure they will come up with a thoughtful, cogent treatise on such matters.

OgreMagi:Willas Tyrell: jst3p: jayphat: Didn't we read a story here a while back where DNA proved a guy wasn't the father, but since the mother fingered him as the dad, and the child would suffer without the money, they were going to force him to pay up anyway?

Texas seems pretty farked up in this regard. If I am reading this correctly you have 60 days after birth to challenge paternity I believe the case you are referring to happened in Texas, actually I remember more than one.

https://www.oag.state.tx.us/ag_publications/txts/paternity.shtml

You're misreading it.

Texas, like most states, has a 60 day time limit to *rescind* a signed acknowledgment of paternity, the legal document that establishes paternity for children born outside a marriage.

In other words, if you sign the legal papers admitting paternity you only have 60 days to change your mind. If both parents don't don't sign the acknowledgment then someone would need to file a paternity proceeding to establish legal paternity.

/If you want a DNA test get it before you sign the document making you permanently the legal father.

Paternity tests should be given at birth. I wonder how much push back there would be on a proposal to make this the law?

Be an interesting idea. Currently in California, it actually says in the laws that whoever is named on the birth certificate is the legal father, or whoever had access to the mother within 200 days prior to the birth. (Access--a lovely term) It's very archaic. And the burden is on the father currently to ask for DNA testing or otherwise deny parentage if he's got reason to believe he's not the father--and there's a limited window to do it.

It might be time to start, or at least repealing the presumption of paternity.

R.A.Danny:One lady gets pregnant, frozen pop, twins. She hooks up with another very nice lady, they're a lovely couple. In Illinois they can't get married, but they cohabitated for five years, and the kids are now six. Now they are splitting up. it's very sad. I'm friends with both of them so I am not taking sides here, but I am kinda sickened by the traction that the birth mother is getting in getting child support for kids that are hers and hers alone.

I am all for marriage equality, but they were never married. There was no adoption. Whether you are male or female you shouldn't get nailed with child support because you temporarily cohabitated with a woman with children.

I would love to see the State's arguments. The entire notion is preposterous even if the couple was of opposite sexes. Illinois banned common law marriage in 1905. There is no such thing as common law adoption; English common law did not allow it.